Great minds like a think: Criticizing that NYT climate-change op-ed

"There are few, if any, climate experts who believe the Clean Air Act is well-suited to GHG emission control." -Jonathan H. Adler

Christie Whitman: Clueless on the climateMatt Rainey/The Star-Ledger

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Jonathon H. Adler has a post making the same point I made about that New York Times op-ed on climate change from Christie Whitman and three other Republicans who headed the Environmental Protection Agency.

I'm not talking about the point I made concerning the scientific ignorance exhibited by her and other politicians who advocate the alarmist position on climate change.

I'm talking about the way in which the writers abandoned the one approach to the issue that might resonate with Republicans - a carbon tax.

Conservatives could accept such a tax - or any consumption tax - if the proceeds were used to reduce income taxes, whether personal or corporate.

From a conservative perspective, no tax is as bad as an income tax. Income taxes discourage the one thing government should encourage - work. The only way to avoid such a tax is by working less. And that's bad for society

It's far better to discourage things like energy consumption. If I know that gas, for example, is highly taxed, i can simply drive less or drive a more efficient car.

Yet these four dropped the idea of a consumption tax in favor of granting President Obama power to unilaterally set limits on carbon emissions. No Republican should accept that.

Here's how Adler puts it:

Then there’s the substance of the argument, little of which is responsive to Republican concerns about the size of government or cost and intrusiveness of federal regulation. The four suggest that a carbon tax would be a relatively efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and encourage technological innovation. They’re right about this. They then suggest that a carbon tax is politically infeasible — a reasonable, if debatable, proposition. But rather than make the case for some sort of alternative to the current Administration’s policies, they suggest Republican leaders should endorse the EPA’s imposition of greenhouse gas controls under the Clean Air Act. Really? There are few, if any, climate experts who believe the Clean Air Act is well-suited to GHG emission control. This is one reason both the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats sought new climate legislation. The CAA is capable of imposing substantial costs on emitters, but cannot come close to achieving meaningful reductions (for reasons I detail here). Some may believe it’s better than nothing, but those folks are rare in Republican circles. If Republicans are ever going to be convinced to endorse climate policies, they won’t be in the form of costly command-and-control emission regulations — regulations capable of imposing substantial pain for little gain.

I disagree with Adler on the science, of course. Climate "science" has become a cottage industry for those involved in it, and all have an interest in promoting apocalyptic scenarios.

But on the economics, there can be no disagreement, at least among conservatives. Consumption taxes are better than incomes taxes, period.